Positing peace as an unnatural state that must be enforced by international laws and governing bodies, Kant effectively anticipates multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the European Union. Though the essay's ironic tone suggests the impossibility of this vision, one of its ultimate goals is to nevertheless challenge the politicians who mock the concept as "a childish and pedantic idea," and to create in their place a newly discursive space for discussing peace and international law.
This project has a seemingly unattainable goal--namely, international peace. But what it aspires to do at its simplest is begin, as Kant himself proposed, a conversation with those philosophers who engage with the idea of peace, with those practitioners who participate directly in the world of geopolitical conflict, and with those governing bodies who have the power to truly make peace a sustainable reality. This conversation begins with a traditional definition of international peace as a relationship between states, but also acknowledges contemporary realities of intra-state conlicts, issues of global governance, and human security. Whether this conversation happens in the public halls of cultural institutions or governmental offices, in cafes or living rooms, newspapers or blogs, our project seeks to restart this discourse without worrying where it will end.
For more information please visit www.perpetualpeaceproject.org and the Syracuse University Humanities Centre Website at www.syracusehumanities.org
Perpetual Peace Symposium programme:
A trio of guest speaker will lead a serie of dialogues on international peace as part of the ‘Perpetual Peace’ Project.
For this programme, a limited amount of places is available; early registration is advised strongly.
Chair of the Day: Rosi Braidotti (Director Centre for the Humaities, Utrecht)
14:00 – 14:15: Word of Welcome by Cynthia Wilson (Province of Utrecht)
14:15 – 14:45: Opening Words/Lecture Gregg Lambert
14:45 – 15:30: Media presentation by Laura Hanna and Alexandra Lerman.
Philosophers and practitioners have been invited to speak to Immanuel Kant's text and expand upon the issues it raises in relationship to their own varied practices. Segments have been filmed against backdrops that resonate with the themes invoked by their discourse, including monuments commemorating war, deprivation, and collective memory, as well as institutional spaces of policy and international diplomacy. The speakers are, among others: Achille Mbembe, Rosi Braidotti, Helene Cixous, Gregg Lambert and Saskia Sassen.The film is directed by Laura Hanna of Hidden Driver Productions, Alexandra Lerman of ScibeMedia Arts Culture, and Aaron Levy of the Slought Foundation. The Executive Producer is Gregg Lambert of the Syracuse University Humanities Center. Technology and technical assistance has been generously provided by ScribeLabs.
15:30 – 15:45: Break
15:45 – 16:30: Lecture by Martti Koskenniemi "Peace as a Legal Argument"
For lawyers such as Hans Kelsen and Hersch Lauterpacht, among others, peace was an eminently legal postulate. The point of law, especially of international law, was to attain or to maintain peace. But peace is not the only, and arguably not even the most important of international law’s objectives. International law also exists in order to attain justice or to protect human rights and these may sometimes conflict with the search for peace. Indeed, the call for humanitarian intervention – today popular in the form of “responsibility to protect” – is precisely about overriding the argument for peace with something else. On the other hand, debates about international criminal trials sometimes focus on the relationship between criminal justice and peace: is it useful or necessary to indict parties in civil wars or international conflicts if that makes it more difficult to attain a negotiated peace? Should justice be sought whatever the cost? The examples suggest that while “peace” is an important legal objective, it may sometimes be overridden by other considerations. How to think about such conflicts? Should the law be pacifist or pragmatic? What are the virtues and what the dark sides of such positions?
16:30 – 17:00: Response by Patrick Hanafin
17:00 – 17:15: Closing words by Rosi Braidotti